Freakonomics posted a really good analysis of the study and why it was flawed, you can find it here: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/the-fiscal-costs-of-marriage-and-divorce/

Wait, wait, does that mean we can draw the logical conclusions?

Support gay marriage! It's good for the economy!

Support universal health care and affordable child care, because these things would reduce financial strain on families and therefore reduce stress within the marriage!

I don't think they're going for that, though. My husband was reading me bits of the article and I said "Why do I get the feeling that the goal of these groups is the same as it always is? To make it harder for women to get away."

When this report reached certain Oklahoma Legislators they thought it was time to bring back the covenant marriage. New language has been added to a previous bill that now allows folks to enter in to a legal covenant marriage if they choose to do so. Unfortunately, certain legislators think this will reduce to divorce rate, when in reality it will just place increasing financial burdens on women seeking a divorce and creating an environment that encourages women to stay in abusive relationships. Uhg!

"Studies like these are not just about promoting marriage, of course, they're about promoting traditional marriages."

Thank you Thank you Thank you for making this distinction. I think it's very important.

Even if single parents and divorcées did cost the taxpayer more- wouldn't it be offset by all the tax breaks for those who are married?

Actually (@ akeeyu) the uber pro-marriage gays *ahem, HRC* have made exactly that argument; progressive queers have (aptly) pointed out that that's rather problematic.

Marriage promotion in the name of cutting/privatizing social services (which is what this article gets at) is actually pretty old news, I mean since Reagan (at least), the right has been pushing in a serious way to have marriage take up the slack of public services and benefits programs which are getting their budgets slashed left and right (see, eg, Bush's social security privatization push). And the mainstream gay movement has played right into it by saying "hey, so give us marriage too; it's good for the economy!" without, you know, caring what happens to social services so long as married gays can get their bit of the pie.

Articles like this are a pretty good example of how screwed up our country's whole mentality is that marriage should be the primary mechanism for benefit distribution. I mean, it's not just traditional marriage that's fucked up, it's the whole legal institution.

Yes, leave it to the religious zealots to blame something completely illogical for all of our ills. Congratulations on being crazy, people. But I echo the sentiment of Justin Yost - if marriage is THE thing that will save us from near certain economic disaster, we should be all supporting legislation which allows people regardless of sexuality to marry whomever pleases them. Sounds like the most *ahem* logical solution here.

I read the Freakonomics assessment of the study (see first comment by Justin Yost, above) and it echoes my reaction to the study's conclusions -- given that it's the day after April 15th, has anyone really though about how much singles pay more than married couples in taxes? I know that the Earned Income Credit (EIC) and deductions for dependents of single moms will help offset this, but somehow I think the savings is less than for married-with-children families. (I could be wrong. Any single moms post-divorce want to comment?)

If singles-without-children and/or singles-with-children are paying more in taxes than married-with-children families, what does this do to the argument? This study needs to consider both in-flows of tax revenue as well as out-flows of payments for social services.

Given that singles without children pay more in taxes, shouldn't our government be encouraging us to stay unmarried, and on birth control? (Chuckle!)

Yikes my head is spinning.

Lemme see...

My opposite-sex SO and I are happily UNmarried and intend to stay that way. We have a daughter (she's 8 months old and is the single smartest and most beautiful thing on the planet. for serious).

What would the silly family people have to say about that? Seems that on the basis of that study they shouldn't care if we're married or not, since co-habitation (as pointed out by Freakonomics in the link upthread) confers trhe same economic benefits.

But they do care, 'cause this ain't about concerns about poor people or government spending. This is about forcing as many people as possible into marriages -- happy or not, doesn't matter -- so that God will love us again and stop punishing us for having teh gays and teh feminists.

So I guess we're sinners. Also she's a furriner. And a Jew. Hmmmmmm, now that I think about it maybe we are undermining the whole institution of 'family', as constructed by white Christian partiarchs, with our godless ways.

And that's a good thing.

Two experts not connected to the study said such programs are of dubious merit and suggested that other investments - notably job creation - would be more effective in aiding all types of needy families.

Not to mention that, even if encouraging marriage was important to you, job creation would be a more effective means of doing that than some of the goofy marriage promotion stuff these people want.

Speaking of which: Has anyone else seen the weird pro-marriage ads around the DC Metro and Baltimore areas? The ones with the black couple in tuxedo and wedding dress?

#
I’ve got a post up on my blog, The G Spot, that deals with two pieces of recent research about the economic cost of marriage and divorce. One is a rigorous scholarly study in a peer-reviewed journal, and it finds that on average divorce has little impact on women’s income. After divorce, some women’s income goes up, others’ go down, and in the end it’s basically a wash.

The other piece of “research� is the report Jessica references, about divorce and single motherhood supposing costing $112 billion. Rarely have I ever seen such a piece of laughable, specious bullshit. For more, read my post:
http://thegspot.typepad.com/blog/2008/04/the-economic-im.html

As a never-married, single mother of a wonderful little boy, when I read this article yesterday, I wanted to eat glass and spit nails. Why is it that when they see that single-mothering often leads to low-income, the first conclusion must be that they don't have a man!

I mean, it couldn't have anything to do with the ridiculously low minimum wage or the lack of affordable child care so that single mothers can pursue higher education (or even sometimes a job) could it? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the stigma that is placed upon single mothers that often keeps them from getting and keeping decent jobs now could it?

No no no, of fucking course not! It is the fact that she does not have a man to look after her, that she is not worthy of a decent income or education b/c she chose to do it alone.

Obviously, madderthanhell is Madder Than Hell :-)

"And the idea that women don't need a job (just a man) has hurting women welfare recipients for far too long."

Yeah, hard to believe some people tell women "you don't need anyone else's help, your husband will provide!!!" then act surprised when women in poverty don't get or stay married and when men who can't "provide" feel even more excluded from society...

"What would the silly family people have to say about that? Seems that on the basis of that study they shouldn't care if we're married or not, since co-habitation (as pointed out by Freakonomics in the link upthread) confers trhe same economic benefits."

For that matter, what about unofficially recognized marriage? For example, I've heard of same-sex couples in Massachusetts having Unitarian Universalist church weddings years before the state recognized same-sex marriage.

"I mean, it couldn't have anything to do with the ridiculously low minimum wage or the lack of affordable child care so that single mothers can pursue higher education (or even sometimes a job) could it?"

This is an excellent point. If anyone wants to point fingers at people who utilize a lot of social services thereby costing tax payers loads of money, these organizations might look to Wal-Mart, for example, or the fast food industry. The fast food industry has a long history of lobbying against raising the minimum wage, the real value of which has declined since the 70's. Wal-Mart doesn't pay their employees enough to afford their own health care plan nevermind pay the bills but gives them information about how to apply for social services. Wal-Mart costs states millions in social services because they don't pay their employees enough money. Even if pro-marriage organizations had their way, would a man working at Wal-Mart be able to support his wife and kids? Would two married people working at Wal-Mart do that much better?

I am not opposed to social services, but I think it'd be better if we demanded that businesses pay their employees a living wage. Why should Wal-Mart make billions while their employees live in poverty? Why should tax payers pay the health care costs of employees rather than the companies employing them?

(The info I mentioned comes from the book Fast Food Nation and film Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price)

Texas last year earmarked about $15 million in federal funds for marriage education.

Does this surprise anyone?

Not me, that's for sure...

Right now the minimum wage is set above the market equilibrium wage, this means that there is a surplus in labor, ie unemployment. If the minimum wage is raised, yes, some people will have higher salaries, but you will also decrease the number of jobs that are out there thus making unemployment even higher. The reason that the minimum wage is so low is because even at this very low wage rate, all the jobs are being filled, AND people are waiting in line to fill these minimum wage jobs if someone leaves their job.

I agree that the stigmas attached to single women are a problem, but we cannot go about forcing employers to pay more in wages, all that would do is give us a lot more unemployed people. Raising the minimum wage cannot be a solution to the money problem, we need to come up with something else.

To quickly comment on a few other things, first, divorces do cost the taxpayers lots of money, but this should not make divorces bad, maybe it is time to rethink the procedure of getting a divorce. Second, I think that unplanned children in or out of wedlock can also cost taxpayers a lot of money. There is no problem with having a kid when both parents are ok with it, but kids are in reality, huge economic obsticles. Part of planning needs to be figuring out if it is economically possible. So, what we really should do if we want to lower the cost taxpayers are paying, is to encourge better sex ed and marriage planning.

Right now the minimum wage is set above the market equilibrium wage, this means that there is a surplus in labor, ie unemployment. If the minimum wage is raised, yes, some people will have higher salaries, but you will also decrease the number of jobs that are out there thus making unemployment even higher. The reason that the minimum wage is so low is because even at this very low wage rate, all the jobs are being filled, AND people are waiting in line to fill these minimum wage jobs if someone leaves their job.

I agree that the stigmas attached to single women are a problem, but we cannot go about forcing employers to pay more in wages, all that would do is give us a lot more unemployed people. Raising the minimum wage cannot be a solution to the money problem, we need to come up with something else.

To quickly comment on a few other things, first, divorces do cost the taxpayers lots of money, but this should not make divorces bad, maybe it is time to rethink the procedure of getting a divorce. Second, I think that unplanned children in or out of wedlock can also cost taxpayers a lot of money. There is no problem with having a kid when both parents are ok with it, but kids are in reality, huge economic obsticles. Part of planning needs to be figuring out if it is economically possible. So, what we really should do if we want to lower the cost taxpayers are paying, is to encourge better sex ed and marriage/partnership planning.

Here's what I always wonder when I read articles like these - why is the focus and onus on single mothers, and not the many many cases where the men have walked out on their families, creating the situation? Or are never involved in the first place, deny their paternity and refuse to pay child support? Why do they get a free pass in these arguments?

Study Says Most Studies Find Results They Are Looking For: Film at 11

"Given that singles without children pay more in taxes, shouldn't our government be encouraging us to stay unmarried, and on birth control? (Chuckle!)"

No, who will pay future taxes, and support all the elderly (particularly those without family) after they stop working? (Hint: MY KIDS, and ME, the long term care nurse. Do not assume your personal investments or health will hold out indefinitely, unless you think you will actually be paying $10,000 a month for a care home instead of taking the usual way out of signing your assets over to your kids and pretending to be poor so Medicaid kicks in.) Nations such as Japan, are dealing with such crises today, where there are regions where even NINETY PERCENT of the entire population is elderly (the young have escaped to urban regions). Quite common, when there are still traditional logging, farming, or fishing communities.

The government should be paying people to reproduce at pre WWII levels (or welcome millions of working age immigrants per year), and brainwashing them to be good little corporate producers, and consumers, to keep our economy going.

It's that time of year, but here we are talking bs about taxes, who is costing whom what, and who is paying their share again. Anyone recall this?

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/01/blog-post_26.html

This shows that it is "the wealthy" who are paying the taxes in this nation, not "the singles" or even "the middle class." Take note that approximately the bottom 50% of taxpayers DON'T EVEN PAY INCOME TAX, on top of all the people not required to file taxes. Making less than about $30,000 per year? Are you declared as a dependent on someone else's 1040? Perhaps you are making too much of your own importance, as far as taxes go.

This assumes that people are even paying ENOUGH in taxes.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

"The Outstanding Public Debt as of 18 Apr 2008 at 08:00:02 AM GMT is: $9,402,958,737,657.80"

"The estimated population of the United States is 303,829,601 so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,948.13."

"The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.58 billion per day since September 29, 2006!"

Did anybody here pay an extra $30,948.13 per head for their families, ON TOP OF what the government says they owe for the current year to pay "their share" and get this country out of this hole? NO? Then let's stop griping about who is costing whom what, like people with kids.

Ah, forgot the educational spending. People like to blame current kids for costing "them" money. How about yourself?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695268061,00.html

"The national average: $9,138 per student, an increase of $437 over the prior year, according to "Public Education Finances: 2006," released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau."

Basically, in current dollars, it's like each person who went to public school cost OTHER PEOPLE about $100,000 to educate from K-12. Have you or your legal guardians paid $100,000 "your/their share" of taxes just for your education, ON TOP OF all other services you receive/have received since birth? Anyone planning on paying this EXTRA $100,000 at any time in the future? No? Then why complain about other people's kids allegedly costing you/other taxpayers?

This story from North Carolina, "House promises $11,480 per child ($6,349 goes to bureaucrats)"

http://thevoiceforschoolchoice.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/house-promises-11400-per-child-5884-goes-to-bureaucrats/

suggests the wisest thing to do to is to send all kids to private school, and save money, since it is $632 less per year (for the government, at least). Anyone planning on paying to send their kids to private school, for the express purpose of lessening their burden on taxpayers?

More stupid tax complaints:

At the restaurant where my wife works, she reports one of her coworkers told her that it was "so nice" that we don't have to pay a lot in taxes. She complained that she and her husband, on the other hand, had to pay the IRS about $15,000.

I asked my wife why they had to pay "that much" (not excessive, if she and her husband were making about $90,000 a year). Here's the kicker:

My wife says that couple owns FIFTEEN HOUSES with rental income (on top of the husband's usual job). Please recall the "average" house in Hawaii costs $650-700,000 EACH, and Hawaii was this week reported to have the highest rents in the entire nation - in my community, a rat trap house may rent for $1,300, but it's probably more like $1,800-2,000 per month. Times fifteen.

I asked my wife to tell her coworker that if she doesn't like paying "that much" tax (my parents, as a public high school teacher and a full time national guardsman paid more, and that was over 15 years ago), that I would gladly take the fifteen houses off their hands, and pay their taxes for them. Or they can shut the fuck up. (I did not tell her the second part.)

Also take note that this female coworker had for years owned and operated her very own restaurant, but closed that down and now works as a part time waitress in another restaurant as a form of winding down. If she and her husband wanted an extra $15,000 a year to pay their taxes for the privilege of owning FIFTEEN HOUSES, perhaps she should be more than a part time waitress making $25 per day.

When this report reached certain Oklahoma Legislators they thought it was time to bring back the covenant marriage.

Can anyone expand on the legal concept of "covenant marriage"? I hear it referred to over and over in certain circles (and, if I remember correctly, Mike Huckabee is a party to such an arrangement), but I haven't really got round to examining the specifics. Has anyone got references or anything of that sort that would provide some details?

Basically, "covenant marriage" represents bad news for women who want out of bad or abusive marriages, because it may represent a pledge to remain together for life, with few exceptions or remedies. There are a number of results from Google or Yahoo!, but these are some consistently linked sites:

http://www.divorcereform.org/cov.html
http://www.covenantmarriage.com/

See the link "Covenant Marriage Legislation" at the latter site for examples of actual bills or law.

MRAs complain that in the majority of cases, it is the woman who initiates divorce. Because she is usually the disadvantaged one, duh.